Bullfight called Off

[Big Tone]

My vocation has no relevance to my opinions. My vocation does not determine my opinions.

Really? Mine neither.

Can you see what's coming next? I'll give you a clue if it's difficult to see the contradiction or hypocrisy of your statement from what you levelled at me.

I'm ready for the fattest excuse ever posted, or hopefully an apology . ..

 

[RogueHanger]

My vocation has no relevance to my opinions. My vocation does not determine my opinions.

Really? Mine neither.

Can you see what's coming next? I'll give you a clue if it's difficult to see the contradiction or hypocrisy of your statement from what you levelled at me.

I'm ready for the fattest excuse ever posted, or hopefully an apology . ..

I don't think there is any comparison, BT. You explained who you worked for (i.e. thereby suggesting that you were a caring person, because you worked for a caring organisation.) Additionally you told us how you were a caring person, (thereby implying the corelleation with your employers.)
Then you didn't explicitly state that your opinons were not those of your employer, leaving the reader with the impression that your opinions were the reflection of your employers.

I, on the other hand, have not indicated who my employer is, or even if there is one, or even mentioned my work, thereby not associating my opinions with anyone else, or attempted to justify/align my opinions with any referrence to an external organisation (except of course referrence to links). Additionally I have made it clear that my opinions are mine alone.

Now, I fail to understand how anyone can remotely consider my opinions or my comments to be contradictory or hypochritical.

 

[Norcon]

Wriggling again coathanger.

 

[RogueHanger]

Wriggling again coathanger.

I could never out-wriggle you, Notconscious.
Or should I address you as, Noconcsience?

 

[Big Tone]

I don't think there is any comparison, BT. You explained who you worked for (i.e. thereby suggesting that you were a caring person, because you worked for a caring organisation.) Additionally you told us how you were a caring person, (thereby implying the corelleation with your employers.)
Then you didn't explicitly state that your opinons were not those of your employer, leaving the reader with the impression that your opinions were the reflection of your employers.

Sorry, but what a fat excuse and bollo0cks! No one here thought any such thing, anymore than any sane person would think if I were a policeman I would represent the whole police force when off duty.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with declaring who you work for or what you do, because you may have more experience on any particular matter than others. That's kinda the point of being here I thought; that you can tap into a vast wealth of knowledge and experience people have, be it right, wrong or at times just unpalatable.

I, on the other hand, have not indicated who my employer is, or even if there is one, or even mentioned my work, thereby not associating my opinions with anyone else, or attempted to justify/align my opinions with any referrence to an external organisation (except of course referrence to links).

What does that matter if what you say is true? And it must be true because you said it I’ll remind you..

My vocation has no relevance to my opinions. My vocation does not determine my opinions.

So why does it matter to declare who you work for, or what you do, if what you say is true?

Contradiction and hypocrisy! You're running out of people who will bother responding to you at this rate, a sort of self constructive dismissal...

 

[RogueHanger]

I don't think there is any comparison, BT. You explained who you worked for (i.e. thereby suggesting that you were a caring person, because you worked for a caring organisation.) Additionally you told us how you were a caring person, (thereby implying the corelleation with your employers.)
Then you didn't explicitly state that your opinons were not those of your employer, leaving the reader with the impression that your opinions were the reflection of your employers.

Sorry, but what a fat excuse and bollo0cks! No one here thought any such thing, anymore than any sane person would think if I were a policeman I would represent the whole police force.

But the implication would be that your vocation, your employer and your training would have influenced your attitude.
As you quite explicitly put it:

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with declaring who you work for or what you do, because you may have more experience on any particular matter than others. That's kinda the point of being here I thought; that you can tap into a vast wealth of knowledge and experience people have, be it right, wrong or at times just unpalatable.

Exactly, by implication, your training affects your opinion, and by implying that you have had training from a caring organisation, you're implying that you have a more experienced outlook.

I, on the other hand, have not indicated who my employer is, or even if there is one, or even mentioned my work, thereby not associating my opinions with anyone else, or attempted to justify/align my opinions with any referrence to an external organisation (except of course referrence to links).

What does that matter if what you say is true? And it must be true because you said it I’ll remind you..

My vocation has no relevance to my opinions. My vocation does not determine my opinions.

So why does it matter to declare who you work for, or what you do, if what you say is true?

By your own admittance you have implied that your opinion is more caring by your alignment with a caring organisation and thus, is supposed to be more caring than any other.
Let me remind you:

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with declaring who you work for or what you do, because you may have more experience on any particular matter than others. That's kinda the point of being here I thought; that you can tap into a vast wealth of knowledge and experience people have, be it right, wrong or at times just unpalatable.

You see how you are being self-contradictory in your arguments?
You can't be more experienced and knowledgable by declaring who you work for, and then claim it doesn't imply that you are not more experienced or knowledgable.
You did declare who you worked for, hoping to exploit the advantage. Then you had to explicitly retract that advantage.

I have not stated who, if any, I work for therefore I have not tried to exploit any advantage and I have not had to make any statement retracting any implied advantage.

Contradiction and hypocrisy! You're running out of people who will bother responding to you at this rate, a sort of self constructive dismissal...

Is that your impression of Field Marshall Haig claiming victory after certain WW1 battles. He was described as "Butcher of the Somme" due to his excessive casualties under his leadership. Churchill described him as: blocking enemy machine-gun fire with "the breasts of brave men",
among other criticisms.

 

[Norcon]

I don't think there is any comparison, BT. You explained who you worked for (i.e. thereby suggesting that you were a caring person, because you worked for a caring organisation.) Additionally you told us how you were a caring person, (thereby implying the corelleation with your employers.)
Then you didn't explicitly state that your opinons were not those of your employer, leaving the reader with the impression that your opinions were the reflection of your employers.

Sorry, but what a fat excuse and bollo0cks! No one here thought any such thing, anymore than any sane person would think if I were a policeman I would represent the whole police force.

But the implication would be that your vocation, your employer and your training would have influenced your attitude.
As you quite explicitly put it:

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with declaring who you work for or what you do, because you may have more experience on any particular matter than others. That's kinda the point of being here I thought; that you can tap into a vast wealth of knowledge and experience people have, be it right, wrong or at times just unpalatable.

Exactly, by implication, your training affects your opinion, and by implying that you have had training from a caring organisation, you're implying that you have a more experienced outlook.

I, on the other hand, have not indicated who my employer is, or even if there is one, or even mentioned my work, thereby not associating my opinions with anyone else, or attempted to justify/align my opinions with any referrence to an external organisation (except of course referrence to links).

What does that matter if what you say is true? And it must be true because you said it I’ll remind you..

My vocation has no relevance to my opinions. My vocation does not determine my opinions.

So why does it matter to declare who you work for, or what you do, if what you say is true?

By your own admittance you have implied that your opinion is more caring by your alignment with a caring organisation and thus, is supposed to be more caring than any other.
Let me remind you:

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with declaring who you work for or what you do, because you may have more experience on any particular matter than others. That's kinda the point of being here I thought; that you can tap into a vast wealth of knowledge and experience people have, be it right, wrong or at times just unpalatable.

You see how you are being self-contradictory in your arguments?
You can't be more experienced and knowledgable by declaring who you work for, and then claim it doesn't imply that you are not more experienced or knowledgable.
You did declare who you worked for, hoping to exploit the advantage. Then you had to explicitly retract that advantage.

I have not stated who, if any, I work for therefore I have not tried to exploit any advantage and I have not had to make any statement retracting any implied advantage.

Contradiction and hypocrisy! You're running out of people who will bother responding to you at this rate, a sort of self constructive dismissal...

Is that your impression of Field Marshall Haig claiming victory after certain WW1 battles. He was described as "Butcher of the Somme" due to his excessive casualties under his leadership. Churchill described him as: blocking enemy machine-gun fire with "the breasts of brave men",
among other criticisms.

What's that load of dross got to do with a bullfight?

 

[Deleted member 63160]

But the implication would be that your vocation, your employer and your training would have .........

Typical of your statements. Unfounded, unsubstantiated fiction. Just cos you write a huge amount of turd, doesn't make it true. You're so desperate to win the unimportant petty arguments that you stir up, it is pitiful. Get help man. You achieve nothing posting here except generate hate from some and pity from others. The hours you spend typing pages of drivel are a waste of the internet. Get a life.

 

[cajar]

Roguehanger is a retired council office worker, clearly ashamed of this as he refused to reveal it several times. However, as he has revealed it on this forum, we can presume he considers it relevant to his opinions (his words).

It certainly puts his posts into context - you would never see a businessman or self employed person with those kinds of impractical views, but how often do we see council staff moving asylum seekers to more expensive areas 'to be closer to friends' and other hyper sensitive reactions to diversity?

Posted on his previously banned username, Redherring. http://www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1429490#1429490

 

[cajar]

Curiously, him and his wife also like to throw bricks at pigeons and eat them later.

http://www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1453772#1453772

 

[Norcon]

Well now we know he is a law breaker. And a callous one at that!
And a hypocrite.


The Law:
Under Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act it is an offence for any person to kill, injure or take any wild bird.

To actually have brought the pigeon into the house alive but suffering and then kept it that way until its demise was also a serious offence.

 

[Big Tone]

Right, thanks Cajar. See RH, it was easy and despite knowing this I don't think you have to insert a disclaimer and neither do I imagine for one minute your opinions are anything other than your own.

It's also dispelled my thoughts that you may be running an evening class somewhere in trolling.

He'll say it wasn't him but his wife Norcon Can he be guilty by association?

 

[RogueHanger]

But the implication would be that your vocation, your employer and your training would have .........

Typical of your statements. Unfounded, unsubstantiated fiction. Just cos you write a huge amount of turd, doesn't make it true. You're so desperate to win the unimportant petty arguments that you stir up, it is pitiful. Get help man. You achieve nothing posting here except generate hate from some and pity from others. The hours you spend typing pages of drivel are a waste of the internet. Get a life.

But what is your argument against my assertion.
All you've done is tried to abuse me. You haven't provided one shred of argument against my proposition.
So who needs the help for their aggression, and typing drivel, you or me?

 

[RogueHanger]

I don't think there is any comparison, BT. You explained who you worked for (i.e. thereby suggesting that you were a caring person, because you worked for a caring organisation.) Additionally you told us how you were a caring person, (thereby implying the corelleation with your employers.)
Then you didn't explicitly state that your opinons were not those of your employer, leaving the reader with the impression that your opinions were the reflection of your employers.

Sorry, but what a fat excuse and bollo0cks! No one here thought any such thing, anymore than any sane person would think if I were a policeman I would represent the whole police force.

But the implication would be that your vocation, your employer and your training would have influenced your attitude.
As you quite explicitly put it:

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with declaring who you work for or what you do, because you may have more experience on any particular matter than others. That's kinda the point of being here I thought; that you can tap into a vast wealth of knowledge and experience people have, be it right, wrong or at times just unpalatable.

Exactly, by implication, your training affects your opinion, and by implying that you have had training from a caring organisation, you're implying that you have a more experienced outlook.

I, on the other hand, have not indicated who my employer is, or even if there is one, or even mentioned my work, thereby not associating my opinions with anyone else, or attempted to justify/align my opinions with any referrence to an external organisation (except of course referrence to links).

What does that matter if what you say is true? And it must be true because you said it I’ll remind you..

My vocation has no relevance to my opinions. My vocation does not determine my opinions.

So why does it matter to declare who you work for, or what you do, if what you say is true?

By your own admittance you have implied that your opinion is more caring by your alignment with a caring organisation and thus, is supposed to be more caring than any other.
Let me remind you:

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with declaring who you work for or what you do, because you may have more experience on any particular matter than others. That's kinda the point of being here I thought; that you can tap into a vast wealth of knowledge and experience people have, be it right, wrong or at times just unpalatable.

You see how you are being self-contradictory in your arguments?
You can't be more experienced and knowledgable by declaring who you work for, and then claim it doesn't imply that you are not more experienced or knowledgable.
You did declare who you worked for, hoping to exploit the advantage. Then you had to explicitly retract that advantage.

I have not stated who, if any, I work for therefore I have not tried to exploit any advantage and I have not had to make any statement retracting any implied advantage.

Contradiction and hypocrisy! You're running out of people who will bother responding to you at this rate, a sort of self constructive dismissal...

Is that your impression of Field Marshall Haig claiming victory after certain WW1 battles. He was described as "Butcher of the Somme" due to his excessive casualties under his leadership. Churchill described him as: blocking enemy machine-gun fire with "the breasts of brave men",
among other criticisms.

What's that load of dross got to do with a bullfight?

Of course, notconcsious, all of your posts are on topic, aren't they?

Says the biggest abusive bully on the forum.

What abusive behaviour are you referring too?

Most of the abuse comes from you. You deserve a good kicking.

A toe rag like you could teach me no lessons.

Go over here and see what I've written about your beloved eu...
http://www.diynot.com/forums/electr...ild-quality-solar-photovoltaic-panels.403333/

What do/did you do for a living?

Why are you so ashamed off your past actions?
You give credence to the eu so that's enough to be ashamed off in itself.

What did you do then?

Why is it such a big secret?
The only thing you've exposed so far is your balls in the hope someone will lick them.

"It is no secret"

From where I'm sitting it looks like a big big secret.

Your job had relevance with the nonsense you post which is why peoples valid opinions on here irks you so much.
You were a pen pusher that's for certain.

That said I would assume micilin was an educated chap. But he's just a plasterer who googles a bit.

Plonker!

 

[cajar]

Definitely you, not him.